Shakeyhands

Here.... let me assist you. Check here ---> The NEWS department Any broadcaster/media outlet can say whatever they want (and be held liable for it) on their entertainment shows, not so much the news, which of course is what this entire thread is about.

Just the same as the opinions that come from the Globe or the Post... what is it that you don't understand. We're talking news here guys, not opinion.

That wasn't a news story. It was an investigative documentary, big difference.

Those are "OPINIONS" Saipan. Not presented as news. Papers have editorial sections. Wow.

Wouldn't take a bet on that one. I am so tired of the usual suspects on this board making claims about The Star or The CBC or any other outlet printing flase or misleading news. I'd dearly love to see ONE such case. It would seem that all they can come up with is either editorials or accusations that others have made in published news articles. It's pretty clear that there is a lot of straw grasping going on with this group. ONE STORY.... Please?

Please point out... oh, I don't know... say one (1) lie. Thanks.

Alas Babylon!!!!!!!......

Oh I see your argument now... parroted of course from the CPC talking points about not asking the right question the right way... Maybe you'll believe thiiiiiiiissssssssss story? as an aside.... Lukiwski... unbelievable that he is still around.

Will examples be shown in your video?

Didn't realize that is what you wanted to debate and accomplish by your OP. Is it?

That is exactly what happened. Check the Hansard. She lied, period.

DEFLECT!!!!!!! ADSCAM!!ADSCAM!!ADSCAM!!ADSCAM!!ADSCAM!!ADSCAM!!ADSCAM!!ADSCAM!!ADSCAM!!ADSCAM!!ADSCAM!!ADSCAM!!ADSCAM!! The Liberals are enjoying the fall out, and have been for a number of years. Will the CPC step up and do what is right in the Oda situation? That's the real question here, crrying "BUT the Liberals" every time isn't going to cut it.

Did Oda not claim both in Committee and in the House that she didn't know who added the "not" and that it wasn't at her direction? Did she not later admit in the House that it was done at her direction? That, my friend, constitutes a lie.

? Bush Protesters arrested Another arrest story and another yet again... I could go on... Spare us the outrage.

Chantal Hebert had a sensible editorial in The Star today.... Made a lot of sense to me. Harper stands alone

My guess is that the CPC sees this as an election issue that they'd like to fight as opposed to say the budget. Have no doubt, Harper will try to spin this to his advantage.

Moroney and Lyin' Brian are both against the rules of the board. Your point is better made without reducing oneself to name calling.

There was none. Allow him his faux outrage.

First, there is a difference between granted extra time for preconviction detention and parole. Second, there is a criteria that needs to be met, set out by the Parole Board and Corrections Canada, that must be met. It is in no way automatic nor is it easy to get if you haven't done a number of things such as admit culpability and make an effort to change your lifestyle and associations. There are all kinds of stipulations that must be met, or you are going right back in.

Sigh.... Please point out any misinformation that CBC has provided to you.

Dude, we're not talking about the crime rate 20 years ago, we're talking now. Have you got any data to back up what you are saying, besides CPC talking points....? Prove to me what you are saying about a rise in crime and recidivism now.

We are drifting, but it's your boys who are bringing it up. I'll summarize the situation for you all. Chretien and Martin had nothing to do with it per Gomerys findings. Yet you all still try to accuse them of being complicent. Odd.

It certainly was approved and expected, this is proven by the other two signatures. If she wished then to deny the funding, which is the Governments right, it should have been sent back and never allowed to get to that point. Nor should she have deceived the House and the Committee. It's actually pretty simple.

~20 year old data???? You can do better than that, no? and you made the claim, it's up to you to prove it Mr. No Facts.

As stated before, the bigger deal is most certainly the lying. Having said that, changing a document after two other signatories have signed it is falsifying it. There are no if, and or buts on this. Transparent and open indeed.